User talk:Sancho Mandoval
x
Proposed deletion of Assassination of Jim Pouillon
The article
- fails WP:NOT#NEWS
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
Assassination of Jim Pouillon
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Human disguise AfD
I've asked you a question about your comment there. Verbal chat 15:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Bibliography page guideline proposal
Hi Sancho,
As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification but I think the discussion is a bit over my head. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)]
Voice of reason
I appreciate your trying to bring reason to an attempt to destroy the valuable, public-spirited information at Politics of Gatineau Park. Though opponents may win in the end, I'm glad to see you stepped in to protect information the public certainly ought to know about.
Besides, Ahunt and Mnelson had done some work to bring the alternate view into the mix. Though they seem to have forgotten, since both have now worked themselves into an executioner's lather/frenzy.
As well, seems Ahunt's conspirators share a love for aircrafts. MilborneOne and the fellow who warned me at my talk page. Anyhow, I see them as ganging up on knowledge. And so it goes.--Stoneacres (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment at RfA
Hi, you're right to question my comments at that AfD. I hadn't intended to accuse the nominator of hounding. At the time there was the danger of editors getting carried away in their examination of Benjiboi's edits, which was what my comment was addressing. Fences&Windows 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Barrington Plaza
The speedy delete had nothing to do with notability, just with the fact that the only editor who had made substantive contributions to the article wanted it deleted. If you would like to undelete it so that you can become a substantive contributor (thereby eliminating the basis on which the article was deleted, and presumably re-opening the AFD), let me know. Steve Smith (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ignoring now, somewhat belatedly. Steve Smith (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Louis Lesser, Barrington Plaza
I wrote the original terrible articles on
Speedy deletion nomination of Barrington Plaza
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- This was a pretty bad tagging... it didn't even come close to meeting G4. I'd rewritten the article from scratch. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)]
I accidentally hit the vandal button while reverting your changes
Sorry about that. Your good faith edits on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes are not vandalism, but they should be discussed on the talk page. Bold, revert, discuss. Now we're at discussion. Please take it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes before making the change again. BusterD (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Barrington Plaza
I have nominated Barrington Plaza, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrington Plaza (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I purchased LA Times and New York Times archives
- I spent my own money and bought the LA Times archives access, since I don't understand how Wikipedia works, where editors are still calling Louis Lesser a "hoax", despite hundreds of google news archives articles on "Louis Lesser Enterprises", "Louis Lesser", the hundreds of historic buildings Lesser developed, and hundreds of news stories about Lesser's other historic international companies, including headliner news stories about Louis Lesser that are not very flattering to Lesser. I will make these available to anyone who wants to use them to improve the article.
- If this is not enough, I will purchase the New York Times article access, if this is required by Wikipedia to stop calling this a "hoax".talk) 18:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)]
Gatineau Park invitation
You are receiving this invitation to join other editors working on the Gatineau Park article, because you participated in the AfD debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and have thus shown an interest in this subject. The greater the number of editors who participate in articles, the better the articles become. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read my edit summary on my revert of you. I invite you to dialog with me on that talk page. I understand the importance of not soapboxing and am not trying to do so. The article is weak and I am trying to start a dialog towards improving it. This case has particularly interesting aspects of legal significance. We do our readers a dis-service if we overlook them 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowl is two words
That is all. Majorclanger (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Did you also admonish the person who added the unverified information I removed, or the person(s) who removed the fact tag twice without providing a source? I think retaining inaccurate/unsourced information makes us look infinitely worse than spelling mistakes... or at least getting so worked up over spelling mistakes but not unsourced information. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)]
- Calm down. Now you know. You won't make the same mistake again. Everybody wins. Majorclanger (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahunt's bad faith
Ahunt is misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt is showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. Ahunt --Stoneacres (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)interprets them to suit his POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.
In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on Ahunt.
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current